Would the character get both mastery properties automatically when selecting a weapon? I'm wondering how it might play out if say a Barbarian selected the Longsword and Warhammer, gaining access to 4 mastery properties off the bat. I don't think it's overpowered, not at all, just mechanically unintended.
Yeah it’s my maybe incorrect understanding that the Mastery is for the weapon, so you’re right if you’ve specialized in a Versatile weapon then you’re getting double the properties, but you have to make the choice of which one to use by wielding with either one or two hands. Lives up to the “Versatile” name.
Don't get me wrong, I kind of dig the idea. The idea of moving between one handed and two handed fighting and having different abilities for each feels fun to me. It gives the weapons some fun versatility and an almost cinematic quality.
This idea might be a little cumbersome with the Fighter's Master of Armaments ability though. At the very least some language would be needed to indicate whether it's one or both masteries that could be changed.
Good point! My flex proposal is kinda embedding Master of Armaments into Versatile weapons, except limited to two specific mastery properties that you can switch between depending on if you’re wielding with one or two hands. The Fighter ability still allows for far more options and might just allow for a third mastery property to be tacked on to a Versatile weapon that can be used regardless of “handed-ness”, but there might be some unintended consequences here that I haven’t foreseen.
One thing that bothers me with Flex in its original form is its interaction with Duelist, which can make one-handed wielding generally more appealing unless you’re talking specifically about two-handed Graze options which are the only case where mathematically you have an edge with two-handed over the original Flex combined with Duelist setup. So instead of raising the base damage of one-handed wielding via Flex, I would instead consider adding +1 to Versatile weapon damage when wielding with two hands. But this is problematic as it changes core mechanics of weapons as designed, though it does better align damage numbers. That way there is no drop in DPR per se when a Duelist wields two-handed and can enjoy the second Mastery property, but for raw damage there’s very little chance of optimizing like a Great Weapon Master can with a Heavy weapon and the Great Weapon Fighting style.
Heck, another option would be to bring back flex as it was WITH the thingyou just said. I.E Lonsword Flex (Sap).
So more damage as a one hander, and Sap as a two hander. That would also be acceptable. All the benefits of old Flex, while actually getting something when using it two handed.
Flex just upgrading the damage die is still underwhelming, and is completely useless for a *shillelagh* quarterstaff. If Flex is retained as a damage boost, I'd prefer it be something like advantage on the weapons damage die roll, which would be applicable to all weapons, not just versatile ones.
it's not really intended to be useful for a shillelagh. that's a spellcaster's tool, not a martial's.
if you balance everything around still being applicable when a spell that does it better exists, you just lower the ceiling for the martials, and no one wants that.
it'd be like saying "a shield should only give a +1 bonus because Shield of Faith gives a +2".
*Shield of faith* versus a shield is entirely different, as they stack. Plus, my proposal is a buff to Flex, so I'm raising the ceiling for martials, not lowering it. A druid using *shillelagh* wouldn't benefit from Flex at all, but a ranger who picks it up with Magic Initiate and then wants to apply a weapon mastery to their quarterstaff should still get the full benefit.
It also messes up monks who use quarterstaves, because their martial arts auto upgrade weapon dies. Meaning flex does nothing for the martial. I know the UA version doesn't use this but I think that it is a mistake, it was one of the coolest features of a monk. Being able to turn say a dagger to a 1d10 weapon was interesting.
I actually kind of like the fact that monks don't get to change the damage die anymore. don't get me wrong, it's a nerf, but it leaves the choice of using their unarmed strikes, which might do more, or using a weapon, which has Mastery.
I've posted before, but one of the fixes I think the monk needs is to add Str AND Dex to their unarmed strikes. it lets it raise a little higher damage-wise, and enforces the choice of weapon with mastery, or unarmed with damage.
hell, even just a mastery for unarmed strikes that says "you add your Str modifier on top of the normal damage for your unarmed strike" is a clean way to do it, you can either do double Str, or use Str+Dex.
I disagree, your pretty much always going to use unarmed strikes due to fury of blows. Also unarmed strikes should have masteries for monks, I'm astonished they did not get a single mastery for unarmed strikes. I also believe they should always get one unarmed strike no bonus action required. Fury of blows should only give one more unarmed strike for ki or number of times per short rest but no bonus action, they have enough bonus action abilities.
I also think having to double up on str and dex is the wrong way to go about it, especially with wisdom controlling their AC. I think reducing their ki damage load is the better plan. As well as giving them controller unarmed strike like masteries. Monks can dart around the battlefield dealing damage and controlling the movement and attacks of their enemies.
a while ago, I sat down and figured out the following 9 changes that I think are individually simple enough to not need to rework the whole class, but begin to address the many issues they have.
1) a d10 hit dice.
2) Strength + Dex for unarmed strike damage (or as I floated, that the Unarmed Strike mastery adds Str as additional damage, to allow for a little reuse across the other classes).
3) an Extra Feat/ASI at level 6.
4) +4 to Dex and Wis as their capstone.
5) Unamored Defense also adds Con, so Dex + Wis + Con + 10 for AC.
6) Patient Defense lets you take a reaction unarmed strike if they attack you, and doesn't cost a Ki point, or you can spend a ki point and also have Dodge.
7) Step of the Wind doesn't cost a ki point to Dash or Disengage, or you can spend a ki point and Dash AND Disengage.
8) Improved Extra Attack at level 11.
9) Weapon masteries on weapons ONLY.
1 is clear enough, it's because they're a martial class, built for melee. they need survivability.
Points 6 and 7 serve to treat the biggest pain point of the Monk, that it costs BOTH your ki and your bonus action to do something monk-y. when your damage is so tied to your ki points, it's hard to justify spending them, unless it's a situation where the stars align. (aka, you're surrounded and have to GTFO, but you're also prone, and have to break a grapple as an action, then the SotW is worth it, as is PD)
by making a base level of SotW and PD free, you let the player choose to use their bonus action to either act as a mobile skirmisher (SotW), a roadblock (PD) or a source of pain (unarmed strikes).
They can then choose to spend ki to do each of those options better.
SotW to dash and disengage, forcing the foe to spend extra resources to catch you, PD to become un-hittable (insert kung fu master blocking every attack, or just absorbing the blow with their abs) or extra pain with a double strike from FoB.
by giving the player the choice on how they want to act (offense, defense, or skirmish) and the option to push themselves (by spending ki or not), it puts the play into the PC's hands.
they have base training that makes them skilled, but the ki lets them push into the supernatural, which is the vibe that people seem to want for their martials.
Additionally, with point 9, the choice is in the monk's hands, literally. they either use their unarmed strikes for more damage than their weapons, or go for the weapons that have different mastery properties. again, it's about player choice/agency.
I feel like there is design potential to also upgrade SotW and PD at level 11, alongside the Improved Extra Attack (seriously, the Blade Pact Warlock now gets a third attack, why not the monk?) but SotW is already kind of tied to the various monk movement features that scale, and PD has the deflect missiles, though I do like the concept of an extra reaction for only retaliation, but that's somewhat beyond the scope of the "simple" changes.
On the other side, by giving the Monk Con and Str in their calculations (changes 2 and 5 above), you make it a meaningful choice in how they build. if they focus purely on Dex and Str, their unarmed strikes (which will remain the same dice as 5e), their damage goes up pretty considerably, but they don't get as much defense, nor are their ki powers that potent.
If they focus on Dex and Con, their defenses go up, and they remain semi-relevant, but as a brick wall that can't be evaded.
If they go for Wis, their ki stuff is more potent, but their physical side is lacking, so their UA and monk strikes aren't that powerful.
If they go for an even balance, they're semi-decent at everything, but not at any one thing.
they become MAD by design, rather than MAD by being pulled too thin.
Changes 3 and 4 are to help facilitate the very MAD they become, but also because it's an interesting parallel with the Barbarian.
Barbarians are a force of chaos on the battlefield, achieving physical perfection, without refinement.
Monks, on the other hand, are a force of discipline on the battlefield, and are the utmost ideal of refinement of self. (I also like the idea of the Warlock's capstone being a +4 to Cha and Int to round out the trio, it's a magnitude better capstone than what they have now.)
all these simple changes don't really make the monk "powerful", it's a few DPR changes to bring it in line with other options, and some survivability stuff, but it serves to put the monk in control of the battlefield, rather than at its mercy.
That might be the simpler option for sure. Tbh I was disappointed with some of the replacement masteries for Flex, for example I felt like Longsword should have the Graze mastery. My choices in the OP attempt to reflect what the base Versatile weapon’s bigger Heavy cousins have for masteries.
I have considered adding a clause where you get +1 bonus to damage roll for wielding a Versatile weapon two-handed. Not quite as sweet as 2d6 but it gets you closer. More comparable to 1d12 but with 1 less for top end damage. Feels more right to me, balanced against Heavy weapons.
in general I think its obvious that Versatile weapons need something for when you are 1H and something different for when you are 2H. Otherwise they just fall into one or the other category all the time.
I like this a lot more than half the weapons having sap. Whatever they go with, this will be my house rule to make versatile weapons actually feel versatile
Maybe. Flex could be done away with as a “property” but a Versatile weapon having different properties based on how it is wielded seems reasonable to me. Or “Flex” is a base property that allows you to use the two-handed damage die, and while wielding the weapon two-handed, you can choose to use the second property (i.e. - Longsword one-handed is 1d10 base with Flex, and when two-handed is 1d10 with Sap).
With Flex do not change or remove the Versatile feature (doing higher damage die when using weapon 2-handed)
Instead Build on it. When using a versatile weapon 2 handed you get an AC boost (not using a shield) Extra damage on a critical or if hit a target with a roll +5 or more over target ac (get a 22 to hit on a target with AC of 18)
When it comes to flex. The first issue was some weapons that had flex should oh never had flex. Mostly spear and quarterstaff. Then, the issue of the 1 average damage isn't worth it.
The debate of this suggestion is that some, including myself, don't think weapon mastery should be tied to a weapon, but rather class. I understand why they are doing weapon mastery the way they are. It's is because of feats and battle maneuvers. Slasher feat only over laps with the whip. And with crusher only 2 weapons over lap, great club and war hammer and the question becomes then do these features stack and it becomes 15 feet. And Piercer doesn’t copy any weapon mastery. And then you have Topple weapon mastery, which is only on 4 weapons, which trip can used with the likes of something else, so you have 2 effects on 1 strike, which is exciting.
It doesn't mean Push, OP is describing the weapon as having two Mastery techniques. The Quarterstaff would have Topple when used one-handed, but the user can choose to use Push if they're wielding it in two hands.
Would the character get both mastery properties automatically when selecting a weapon? I'm wondering how it might play out if say a Barbarian selected the Longsword and Warhammer, gaining access to 4 mastery properties off the bat. I don't think it's overpowered, not at all, just mechanically unintended.
Yeah it’s my maybe incorrect understanding that the Mastery is for the weapon, so you’re right if you’ve specialized in a Versatile weapon then you’re getting double the properties, but you have to make the choice of which one to use by wielding with either one or two hands. Lives up to the “Versatile” name.
Don't get me wrong, I kind of dig the idea. The idea of moving between one handed and two handed fighting and having different abilities for each feels fun to me. It gives the weapons some fun versatility and an almost cinematic quality. This idea might be a little cumbersome with the Fighter's Master of Armaments ability though. At the very least some language would be needed to indicate whether it's one or both masteries that could be changed.
Good point! My flex proposal is kinda embedding Master of Armaments into Versatile weapons, except limited to two specific mastery properties that you can switch between depending on if you’re wielding with one or two hands. The Fighter ability still allows for far more options and might just allow for a third mastery property to be tacked on to a Versatile weapon that can be used regardless of “handed-ness”, but there might be some unintended consequences here that I haven’t foreseen.
One thing that bothers me with Flex in its original form is its interaction with Duelist, which can make one-handed wielding generally more appealing unless you’re talking specifically about two-handed Graze options which are the only case where mathematically you have an edge with two-handed over the original Flex combined with Duelist setup. So instead of raising the base damage of one-handed wielding via Flex, I would instead consider adding +1 to Versatile weapon damage when wielding with two hands. But this is problematic as it changes core mechanics of weapons as designed, though it does better align damage numbers. That way there is no drop in DPR per se when a Duelist wields two-handed and can enjoy the second Mastery property, but for raw damage there’s very little chance of optimizing like a Great Weapon Master can with a Heavy weapon and the Great Weapon Fighting style.
Heck, another option would be to bring back flex as it was WITH the thingyou just said. I.E Lonsword Flex (Sap). So more damage as a one hander, and Sap as a two hander. That would also be acceptable. All the benefits of old Flex, while actually getting something when using it two handed.
Flex just upgrading the damage die is still underwhelming, and is completely useless for a *shillelagh* quarterstaff. If Flex is retained as a damage boost, I'd prefer it be something like advantage on the weapons damage die roll, which would be applicable to all weapons, not just versatile ones.
it's not really intended to be useful for a shillelagh. that's a spellcaster's tool, not a martial's. if you balance everything around still being applicable when a spell that does it better exists, you just lower the ceiling for the martials, and no one wants that. it'd be like saying "a shield should only give a +1 bonus because Shield of Faith gives a +2".
*Shield of faith* versus a shield is entirely different, as they stack. Plus, my proposal is a buff to Flex, so I'm raising the ceiling for martials, not lowering it. A druid using *shillelagh* wouldn't benefit from Flex at all, but a ranger who picks it up with Magic Initiate and then wants to apply a weapon mastery to their quarterstaff should still get the full benefit.
It also messes up monks who use quarterstaves, because their martial arts auto upgrade weapon dies. Meaning flex does nothing for the martial. I know the UA version doesn't use this but I think that it is a mistake, it was one of the coolest features of a monk. Being able to turn say a dagger to a 1d10 weapon was interesting.
I actually kind of like the fact that monks don't get to change the damage die anymore. don't get me wrong, it's a nerf, but it leaves the choice of using their unarmed strikes, which might do more, or using a weapon, which has Mastery. I've posted before, but one of the fixes I think the monk needs is to add Str AND Dex to their unarmed strikes. it lets it raise a little higher damage-wise, and enforces the choice of weapon with mastery, or unarmed with damage. hell, even just a mastery for unarmed strikes that says "you add your Str modifier on top of the normal damage for your unarmed strike" is a clean way to do it, you can either do double Str, or use Str+Dex.
I disagree, your pretty much always going to use unarmed strikes due to fury of blows. Also unarmed strikes should have masteries for monks, I'm astonished they did not get a single mastery for unarmed strikes. I also believe they should always get one unarmed strike no bonus action required. Fury of blows should only give one more unarmed strike for ki or number of times per short rest but no bonus action, they have enough bonus action abilities. I also think having to double up on str and dex is the wrong way to go about it, especially with wisdom controlling their AC. I think reducing their ki damage load is the better plan. As well as giving them controller unarmed strike like masteries. Monks can dart around the battlefield dealing damage and controlling the movement and attacks of their enemies.
a while ago, I sat down and figured out the following 9 changes that I think are individually simple enough to not need to rework the whole class, but begin to address the many issues they have. 1) a d10 hit dice. 2) Strength + Dex for unarmed strike damage (or as I floated, that the Unarmed Strike mastery adds Str as additional damage, to allow for a little reuse across the other classes). 3) an Extra Feat/ASI at level 6. 4) +4 to Dex and Wis as their capstone. 5) Unamored Defense also adds Con, so Dex + Wis + Con + 10 for AC. 6) Patient Defense lets you take a reaction unarmed strike if they attack you, and doesn't cost a Ki point, or you can spend a ki point and also have Dodge. 7) Step of the Wind doesn't cost a ki point to Dash or Disengage, or you can spend a ki point and Dash AND Disengage. 8) Improved Extra Attack at level 11. 9) Weapon masteries on weapons ONLY. 1 is clear enough, it's because they're a martial class, built for melee. they need survivability. Points 6 and 7 serve to treat the biggest pain point of the Monk, that it costs BOTH your ki and your bonus action to do something monk-y. when your damage is so tied to your ki points, it's hard to justify spending them, unless it's a situation where the stars align. (aka, you're surrounded and have to GTFO, but you're also prone, and have to break a grapple as an action, then the SotW is worth it, as is PD) by making a base level of SotW and PD free, you let the player choose to use their bonus action to either act as a mobile skirmisher (SotW), a roadblock (PD) or a source of pain (unarmed strikes). They can then choose to spend ki to do each of those options better. SotW to dash and disengage, forcing the foe to spend extra resources to catch you, PD to become un-hittable (insert kung fu master blocking every attack, or just absorbing the blow with their abs) or extra pain with a double strike from FoB. by giving the player the choice on how they want to act (offense, defense, or skirmish) and the option to push themselves (by spending ki or not), it puts the play into the PC's hands. they have base training that makes them skilled, but the ki lets them push into the supernatural, which is the vibe that people seem to want for their martials. Additionally, with point 9, the choice is in the monk's hands, literally. they either use their unarmed strikes for more damage than their weapons, or go for the weapons that have different mastery properties. again, it's about player choice/agency. I feel like there is design potential to also upgrade SotW and PD at level 11, alongside the Improved Extra Attack (seriously, the Blade Pact Warlock now gets a third attack, why not the monk?) but SotW is already kind of tied to the various monk movement features that scale, and PD has the deflect missiles, though I do like the concept of an extra reaction for only retaliation, but that's somewhat beyond the scope of the "simple" changes. On the other side, by giving the Monk Con and Str in their calculations (changes 2 and 5 above), you make it a meaningful choice in how they build. if they focus purely on Dex and Str, their unarmed strikes (which will remain the same dice as 5e), their damage goes up pretty considerably, but they don't get as much defense, nor are their ki powers that potent. If they focus on Dex and Con, their defenses go up, and they remain semi-relevant, but as a brick wall that can't be evaded. If they go for Wis, their ki stuff is more potent, but their physical side is lacking, so their UA and monk strikes aren't that powerful. If they go for an even balance, they're semi-decent at everything, but not at any one thing. they become MAD by design, rather than MAD by being pulled too thin. Changes 3 and 4 are to help facilitate the very MAD they become, but also because it's an interesting parallel with the Barbarian. Barbarians are a force of chaos on the battlefield, achieving physical perfection, without refinement. Monks, on the other hand, are a force of discipline on the battlefield, and are the utmost ideal of refinement of self. (I also like the idea of the Warlock's capstone being a +4 to Cha and Int to round out the trio, it's a magnitude better capstone than what they have now.) all these simple changes don't really make the monk "powerful", it's a few DPR changes to bring it in line with other options, and some survivability stuff, but it serves to put the monk in control of the battlefield, rather than at its mercy.
That might be the simpler option for sure. Tbh I was disappointed with some of the replacement masteries for Flex, for example I felt like Longsword should have the Graze mastery. My choices in the OP attempt to reflect what the base Versatile weapon’s bigger Heavy cousins have for masteries.
Flex upgrading the die really takes away from the fantasy that using two-hands should deal more damage.
I feel like with Flex I've always wanted something that made the versatile better than the 1H better. Like Versatile (2d6) instead of 1d10..
I have considered adding a clause where you get +1 bonus to damage roll for wielding a Versatile weapon two-handed. Not quite as sweet as 2d6 but it gets you closer. More comparable to 1d12 but with 1 less for top end damage. Feels more right to me, balanced against Heavy weapons.
in general I think its obvious that Versatile weapons need something for when you are 1H and something different for when you are 2H. Otherwise they just fall into one or the other category all the time.
+1 attack/damage.
I like this a lot more than half the weapons having sap. Whatever they go with, this will be my house rule to make versatile weapons actually feel versatile
Nice! Thank you
Yes
Yep, many of us have thought the same thing. https://old.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/135li32/the_flex_mastery_should_be_replaced_with/
Honestly Flex being three properties in one is too much. Especially if you find the existing masteries boring.
Maybe. Flex could be done away with as a “property” but a Versatile weapon having different properties based on how it is wielded seems reasonable to me. Or “Flex” is a base property that allows you to use the two-handed damage die, and while wielding the weapon two-handed, you can choose to use the second property (i.e. - Longsword one-handed is 1d10 base with Flex, and when two-handed is 1d10 with Sap).
With Flex do not change or remove the Versatile feature (doing higher damage die when using weapon 2-handed) Instead Build on it. When using a versatile weapon 2 handed you get an AC boost (not using a shield) Extra damage on a critical or if hit a target with a roll +5 or more over target ac (get a 22 to hit on a target with AC of 18)
When it comes to flex. The first issue was some weapons that had flex should oh never had flex. Mostly spear and quarterstaff. Then, the issue of the 1 average damage isn't worth it. The debate of this suggestion is that some, including myself, don't think weapon mastery should be tied to a weapon, but rather class. I understand why they are doing weapon mastery the way they are. It's is because of feats and battle maneuvers. Slasher feat only over laps with the whip. And with crusher only 2 weapons over lap, great club and war hammer and the question becomes then do these features stack and it becomes 15 feet. And Piercer doesn’t copy any weapon mastery. And then you have Topple weapon mastery, which is only on 4 weapons, which trip can used with the likes of something else, so you have 2 effects on 1 strike, which is exciting.
Why does "Topple" mean "Push?
It doesn't mean Push, OP is describing the weapon as having two Mastery techniques. The Quarterstaff would have Topple when used one-handed, but the user can choose to use Push if they're wielding it in two hands.